Come on BHA who are the 9 other trainers? they must know where an awful lot of bodies are buried

It is immaterial as to how experienced he was at administering drugs, he is NOT a qualified veterinarian and so therefore is committing a criminal act by contravention of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 in injecting intra-articularly(into the joint).

Quote from the Daily Telegraph:
"With certain exceptions for farmers, under the Veterinary Surgeons Act it an offence for anyone other than a vet to give animals an 'intra-articular’ injection. Injecting into joints is a skilled job requiring great accuracy. Even the most experienced vets do not always get it right and should infection be introduced to the joint it is often curtains for a horse’s racing career.

The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons confirmed this type of injection was not a “minor medical procedure” and it was therefore against the law for a 'lay person’ to carry it out."

I worked for a vet in the US some years ago and we did plenty of intra-articular injections.  The vet would scrub the area he intended to inject for about 20 minutes to ensure it was as clean as he could possibly get it.  If there is any transfer of bacteria, you run the risk of the joint becoming infected and then it is more than likely game over for the poor effing horse. I lost a filly like this due to a normal foot infection, which then tracked up to her hock.  Her whole hock seized up and went rigid.  Nothing I nor any vet could do.

So when I hear about a trainer injecting joints himself, with a product that isn't even registered for horses, that he has bought off the internet, it makes me very, very angry.  He's on a par with Howard Johnson, IMO.  It should have been longer than 5 years.

It's a naive to think these people work completely independently and I am including Al Zarooni.

LM I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for said offence?

injecting horses himself,what a classy guy..remember his stable jock was e ahern..

Exactly. There should've been a proper investigation into the Sungate issue, but that in no way diminishes the seriousness of Butler's offences.

His excuses are risible.

I want to know which horses ran on this substance and when,if only for the formbook alone it is information that should be public,as for a newmarket vet not knowing this was banned,they deserve a ban also

looks like plenty had their hand in the cookie jar but no crumbs left for authorities to bring charges that would stick.
As for Vet practice not knowing ROFLMAO.

In light of the recent announcement and revelation about the actual drug used as opposed to what Gerard Butler had previously claimed, this man should never be allowed to work in a position of responsibility in a licensed racing stable ever again, no matter where the location.

His actions were blatant cheating.

For a number of years there had been whispers within the industry about Butler's methods, you have to say they have eventually proved accurate.

WalkingStreet, I think you are absolutely right.  In fact if you read the last 2 paragraphs the RP has just posted, its amazing he hasn't been.  Or perhaps its due to the maximum sentence they can impose.

Can you imagine if you or I decided to treat a child in our care with such a procedure?  Just because we had seen a doctor on "Casualty" having a go!

Barking up the wrong tree there Silver......different thing entirely.

Would you like to try it Silver....seems so simple doesn't it....

You are barking up the wrong tree Lairy. If you feel like that you should outside battery chicken houses and calling for a ban on NH racing immediately.

Anyone think a trainer would ever be able to administer an injection on his own to a sensitive part of a horse ? Minimum someone holding the horses head .

I would find it amazing if anyone attempted to administer any injection to a horse unless they were trained to do so or had been shown how to by a qualified person .  Which opens  another can of worms .

I think the Ban very harsh,when considering treatment of other owners,trainers(Godolphin)earlier in the year.

I'm always being labelled an apologist on here but what's the one summing up word to describe those who are so eager to see things that aren't there that they can't see the things that are? Most of the questions in the thread were already answered by post two of it and it just needs reading and taking in, rather than skim reading and then jumping to the nonsense conspiracy theories so beloved by so many.

The Al Zarooni and Butler cases were nothing like the other 9 unnamed trainers and you only have to break each part of post two down to see that:

"While the BHA identified nine other trainers who used the drug, no charges were brought because there were no positive samples and the treatments were advised and administered by vets and fully recorded to medical records."

So Butler's horse tested positive and the other 9 trainers' horses didn't......seems a fairly easy distinction to me.

The other 9 trainers were advised the treated by their vet (the same one) and was administered by their vet.....Butler (and Al Zarooni) didn't use a vet and did it all off his own back.

Plus if you were one of the 9 and were knowingly giving your horses banned drugs, would you record it in your medical books? Presumably Butler didn't and the 9 did.

And yes of course the 9 paid for their drugs but the difference is they paid the vet for them, the same vet who administered them too and if it was a case of "it depends who you are" as to whether they got a ban or not them Al Zarooni would still be training now if the inference is that those who are or who are connected to big names are treated differently.

Just repeating the facts brigust1, not giving a personal view but presumably this all came about once a Butler horse tested positive and then the BHA dug deeper, so without the Butler horse failing then it might never have surfaced.

You could argue that there's an element of protecting the other 9 but by the same token can argue that their names and reputations would be severely damaged with a knock on effect on their careers and their ability to earn a living for themselves and those who depend on them for theirs too.

Look how Kirsty Milczarek had struggled since being banned and then having that overturned.

No-one will blame the trainers Ima, ffs, especially if the vets accept responsibility.

hat irks me is the BHA saying 'Trust us'. Why should I?

It sets a dangerous precedence. In fact had Butler not been caught would we have even heard about this?

Like I said 'It sets a dangerous precedent'.

I think the problem here is that the trainers didn't have the medical knowledge such as actual drug names, brand names and what each drug contained and nor did the vets didn't have the BHA rules knowledge and treated the horses' problems merely as horses with that problem, as opposed to thoroughbred racehorses under BHA guidelines and if the trainers have happily recorded in their medical books what drugs were administered then they clearly were in ignorance and not trying to hide anything.

Ignorance to the law isn't usually much of a defence when someone directly breaks a law or rule themselves but if say an accountant or lawyer does so on behalf of their client and without the client knowing then isn't it a bit harsh to punish the client for it? If somebody's accountant unbeknown to them siphons off their money and uses it for illegal purposes then I think it would be rubbing salt in the wounds to implicate and punish the client too and if some of the damning evidence towards Al Zarooni and Butler is that they cut out using a vet then the only other alternative is to actually use a vet and that's what the other 9 trainers did.

I would be surprised if there is a vet anywhere in these isles who does not look sceptically at any new product which comes on the market . Having done that , the decision on whether to recommend use of the product is the crux . Successful horses , training success , all are grist to the mill , increased vets fees etc . Slippery slope .

The veterinary industry seems to be getting a bye ball in all this exercise , fair enough  if a trainer goes it alone in sourcing substances as in this case .  But if the source and administration of performance enhancing substances does not involve some blame and penalty for the vets it is not a level playing field .  Do the vets have a regulatory body with teeth ?

Fair point but I think in general certainly the vets that are used by the big training centres, Newmarket, Lambourn etc. are completely aware of what can and can't be administered.  In fact if you ring them up, they will give you a run-down of what the withdrawal periods are for most drugs.  There are certain vets who will get you what they term "safe but not yet registered drugs" - most likely from the US or Ireland.  And many trainers don't question that. 

I think what happened with the "Not Named Nine" is that a vet says "hey guys, there's this great product called Sungate just come on the market. Its excellent for slightly rickety joints - lets pop some into that horse over there and it'll be right as ninepence!"  There may or may not have been discussion of the steroidal content or the necessary withdrawal period.  And I think a lot of trainers jump on the bandwagon of the next new product/treatment that will allow them to train their horses who are too fragile.